schools to be able to talk about their beliefs when comes to issues like marriage but as with many other areas whether it is divorce or born outside of marriage teachers have to deal with these issues sensitively and i think that is the point he is getting at but just to reiterate we would expect teachers to be professionally explaining these issues to the children that they teach but in no way requiring them to promote something which does not accord with their beliefs, their faith and that is right. if hon. ladies and gentlemen can forgive me, i will give individuals time to contribute on their own to this debate. mr. speaker, despite the discussion in the debate this bill is about one thing. did it -- it is about fairness, giving those who want to get married the opportunity to do

so, protecting the rights of those who don't agree with same-sex marriage. marriage is one of the most important institutions we have. it binds families and society together, it is a building block that promotes stability, this bill supports and cultivates marriage and i commend this bill to the house. >> thank you very much, really is a pleasure to follow the hon. gentleman to jestersfield to has articulated to many people across the country how we have come to the conclusion that law should be there for one and all and marriage should not be an exclusive institution. i have a gay man who grew up in a world part of our country in a working-class background and i grew up 20 odd years ago in an environment that made it hugely difficult for me to be open and honest and upfront with my

family, friends and workmates about the choices i wanted to make in life and the people wanted to see. that was unacceptable 20 odd years ago, and unacceptable today but for hundreds of thousands of people across the country remains the case. i stand to welcome this historic legislation which i think will end discrimination and send a signal that this house values everybody equally across the country and that signal will deeply affect those people like me at 20 years ago who saw this house vote to equalize the age of consent, the first time i saw on the tv screen other gay people for the first time to speak out. i realized i was not alone and it changed my life. we should remember thousands of gay men and women were put to death in concentration camps 40

years ago, thousands more were criminalize, their lives ruined. 30 years ago we still had people being subjected to scientific torment in search of a cure. we have have a long way in a short space of time. it is absolutely right in my view that this house take the next step and delivers equality for lesbian, gay and bisexual people. let me say to those hon. members who say you would say that because he is a gay man, this view is one that is born over hatred of discrimination and prejudice of all types whether it is about gender or skin color or religion, as the community we should be valuing treating everybody equally. these values are enshrined in one and all. it is the community i grew up in and proud to represent, one that values community. not one and all apart from a few are black or catholic or if you

are gay. it is a community that distrusts abuse of power which is exactly why my right hon. friend the secretary of state is so right, to have made sure this house will not compel people and religious organizations to do anything that they choose not to do. we have struck the right balance between assuring quality and preserving religious freedom. as a house we must question those who wish to toward privilege for themselves. we know that marriage is an important institution that delivers many positive benefits, benefits in terms of stability, health, happiness. if we recognize those benefits why would we keep them away from some of our neighbors who seek to experience them if they choose to and their faith allows it? we would not tolerate this level of discrimination in any other sphere of life and we should end it tonight in this one.

equal marriage will not be the end of the struggle for gay equality in the same with delivering the franchise of women or ending apartheid in those battles but it will stop allowing us to ask the right questions, it will send a clear signal that we value everybody equally. >> thank you, mr. deputy speaker, i congratulate the hon. gentleman for his honest and forthright contribution to this debate. this is my own personal view and i know it is probably going to be much different to the vast majority of my own party and i respect the difference. for the first time in history our government has recorded a bill that will change the nature of marriage in law. to society, a shared view of the essential purpose of marriage, primarily an institution that supports the bearing and raising

of children, and marriage in civic life was launched yesterday evening and again. >> roger gale. >> to follow my friend, to concur with his speech. mr. deputy speaker, i have the privilege of chairing the civil partnerships bill, as has been said very clear undertakings were given by the government and the opposition benches that this was not the thin end of the wedge. this was not a bill for same-sex marriage. this was an engine itself to write very considerable wrongs in law. that it did and that is what the european court of human rights have determined and in those respects it is indistinguishable from what we know as marriage. my right hon. friend when i put this to her earlier told me that

no government could bind another and of course she is correct. no government can bind another. that kicks the bottom out of every undertaking my right hon. friend has given. to most of us on this side of the house. that this bill, a product of this bill will end before the courts, will end a before the european court of human rights and people of faith will find that faith being trampled upon but that to us is intolerable. the cabinet paper, i give way to my right hon. friend, my understanding is the cabinet paper was entitled redefining marriage. it is not possible to read the fine marriage. marriage is the union between a man and woman.

has been historically, remains so. it is alice in wonderland territory for any government or any political persuasion to come along and try to rewrite the mexican. it will not do. there is a way forward. it has been suggested but has been ignored. i don't subscribe to it myself but recognized merit in the argument and that is this. if the government is serious about this, taking away, abolish several partnerships bill, abolish civil marriage and create a civil union bill that applies to all people irrespective of their sexual of the or their relationships and that means brothers and brothers and sisters and sisters and brothers and sisters as well. that would be a way forward. this is not. i urge -- [shouting]

>> can i suggest to the hon. gentleman that what he just suggested is profoundly offensive not only to a great many people in this country who perform civil partnerships but people on both sides of this house. >> the merit in the argument comes from a very eminent lawyer in this house, that it would create what i think the hon. gentleman wants which is equality. it would create a level playing field and it would leave marriage and faith to those who understand that marriage means faith and that marriage means a union between a man and woman and nothing else and the hon. gentleman may seek to back my argument with a promise in this house and outside it there are very many people who share this view. to conclude i urge members on both sides of this house not to abstain if they support this measure, vote for it. if they vote against it, vote

against it. >> thank you, mr. deputy speaker. marriage is one of the most important institutions in our society. it concerns many of us yet many live away from marriage, one group turns towards it. gay couples are now asking to be admitted. here we have a sexual society who are saying they want to declare commitment, values stability in the sight of the public and perhaps of god. we defenders of marriage should be grateful the opening the doors yet the reaction of some has been to slam the doors shut. it is said that they people should accept civil partnerships and no more which confirm most of the legal rights of a marriage. thousands of people like me have cause to be grateful for the courage of hon. members who voted for that change. entering a single partnership was the most important thing i

have done in my life. danceable partnerships were opposed by the churches, opposed by a significant portion of the public and opposed by many hon. members. eight years later only a small minority of the public oppose them and many hon. members who voted against the change now say they support it. but people choose marriage for a reason. they know that it means something special. it is because marriage is different than many are opposing this change. we cannot say civil partnerships are the same or dismiss the debate as being about a name. how many married couples would like to be told they were banned from matrimony and able only to take a civil partnership. the church of england and the catholic church object to gay marriage. i disagree with them but their religious freedom is surely among the greatest prizes in our democracy. i would not vote for this bill unless i believed it protected religious freedom. no faith groups should be compelled by law to conduct game

marriage against its will and none will be. but religious freedom cuts both ways. why should the law prevent unitarian churches from conducting a marriage as they wished to do? the proper safeguards for faith groups and individuals to exercise their conscience and disagree, i do not believe there are sufficient grounds to oppose a measure that allows game marriage for others. to enter a gay marriage your church does not have to conduct a game marriage, you simply have to agree that someone else can enter a gay marriage. of their marriages of millions of straight people are about to be threatened because a few thousand gay people are permitted to join? what will they say? darling, our marriage is over, sir elton john has just gotten engaged. i appreciate the sincerity with which many people oppose equal marriage and the serious points made and ensure religious freedom is protected is a proper concern but some of the

objections do not bear scrutiny. we are told because they're not a legal definition of consummation there's a terrible flaw in the bill but many loving heterosexual marriages exist without consummation. i they inviolate? for some the objection is homosexual conduct itself. today that is a minority view thankfully in decline. >> i am grateful -- >> does he agree with me that achieving legal equality is critical but it is only part of the battle forward? >> i strongly agree with my hon. friend. many do not share this view have a principal concern that gay marriage would mean redefining the institution for everyone yet parliament has repeatedly done this. if marriage has been redefined in 1836 there wouldn't be any civil marriages. if it hadn't been redefined in

1949 under 16-year-olds would still be able to get married. if it hadn't been redefined in 1969 we wouldn't have today's divorce laws. all of these changes were opposed. >> i thank the hon. member from giving way and creating advocacy in the cause of equal marriage. can i say the definition of marriage is in fact what it means most to us as individuals. i define marriage as someone about a loving long-term relationship and that is something to be celebrated and something that should be open to all in our society. >> i agree with the hon. gentleman this is an institution that should be open to all. when i was born homosexual conduct was a crime. not so long ago it was possible to sack someone because they were gay. thank goodness so much has changed in my lifetime.

is progress should be celebrated but we should not believe the journey is complete. i think the gay children who are still believe that schools or are fearful whether their friends and families accept them. vital role models still don't feel able to come out and i know the signal we sent today about whether the law will recognize last-place of gay people in society will really matter. above all, simply want their commitment to be recognized as it is for straight couples and that in this end is what it is about. not just gay people, and a society where people are except for who they are. remember our votes. i hope once again this house will do the right thing.

>> we should indeed treat each other with tolerance and everybody's search well with the understanding that the fundamental question we are deciding today is whether english law should declare for the first time that we to people of the same sex can mary. parliament is of course sovereign. we have to be very careful that law and reality do not conflict. in 1648 the earl of pembroke seeking to make the point that sovereign -- parliament was sovereign said parliament could do anything but make a man or woman or when a man. in 2004 we did exactly that with the gender recognition act. we propose to make equally stark changes with the essence of marriage and in the civil partnership debate i was given solemn assurances on the floor of the house by some people sitting opposite me now that the

civil partnership bill would not be too full same-sex marriage. i am happy to give way to the hon. gentleman who gave those assurances to me. >> can i just say assurances from me are not necessarily going to determine the future of what happens in parliament. several hon. members have our raise what i said in the debate then. it is true that at the time i believed civil partnership was the be all end all of the store. since then i have entered a civil party should and i now believe the world has moved on. many hon. members on his side of the house voted against the will partnerships and britain's mind has changed and want to reflect that in the change of the law. >> the worry some of us have is the world and the hon. gentleman's mind may move on again and many of the assurances we are being given may not count

for very much. >> this parliament is sovereign. it matters not what anybody says in any debate because parliament can trump that with a new law. the point the hon. gentleman made, not the first time he has been wrong by the way. i am one of those who fancy symbols partnerships, expect that to be the end of the story but we are confronted with thousands of people in our country who are into partnerships and wish to enter several partnerships, and that is what this is about. that is precisely what i want to talk about. what is the nature of marriage? catechism of the roman catholic church did of the describe this institution, anybody of any faith or no faith who supports traditional marriage could equally echoes these words, marriage is a covenant where a man and woman establish themselves in a partnership for the whole of life. it is by its nature ordered

towards the good of the spouses and appropriation and education of offspring. what does this tell us? marriage, i believe, and many millions of our fellow citizens believe marriage as defined is by its nature a heterosexual union. is bringing together of one man and one woman. it is not just a romantic attachment which can exist between any two people. it is not just a sexual relationship. it is the act of marriage which by its definition requires two people of opposite sexes. if you take that basic requirement away what you are left with is not marriage. the minister claims marriage has always been evolving, but this, mr. deputy speaker, is not evolution comet it is revolution. true, i am blessed with six

children. i realize every married couple was able to have the gift of children. or indeed may want to. this doesn't change the fact that that concept of marriage has always been bestowed with a vision of procreation. every marriage has the potential it brings together biologically the two elements needed to generate a child. the very reason marriage is underpinned with laws and customs is because children usually result from it. they need protecting the tendency of adults to break their ties and cast off their responsibilities. marriage exists to keep the parents exclusively committed to one another. that is the best, most stable environment for children. if marriage was solely about the relationship between two people we would not bother to enshrine it in law, nor would every

culture and society and religion for thousands of years have invested it with so much importance because it is about protecting the future. marriage is not about me, me, me, it is not about my rights, not about my relationships, it is about a secure environment for creating and raising children based on lifelong commitment and exclusivity. marriage is also profoundly pro women since it is generally men who have the propensity to want to wander off into other relationships. it is women in general who literally are left holding the baby. we have to get away from the idea that every single thing in life can be forced through the merciless prism of the quality. i am a conservative. i do believe we should be concerned with the quality but not at the expense of every

other consideration. not at the expense of tradition. we should protect terrorists institutions and cultural heritage otherwise what is conservative party for? we are alienating people who voted for us for all their lives leaving them with no one to vote for. i would just add this comment from a lady who e-mail me. as i gave woman in a 24-year-old relationship i commend you for your stand against nonsense now being perpetrated by the government. we have civil partnerships to give legal protections. i contract won in 2006. i have the conservative voters for 50 years and see this latest piece of nonsense as a final kick in the teeth for conservatives. i for one will be voting tonight to proclaim my support for the future of our children and the essence of traditional marriage. >> thank you, mr. speaker.

it is an honor to follow the hon. member's. i feel over the last six months a certain distressed about the way this debate has been managed and the pressure put on so many of my colleagues from pressure groups and churches who in my view should have known better. i feel i have been laboring under a false sense of security given the changes that have been made legislatively over the last decade. if all state of security. i object to the prime minister not just for this bill but also the changes he has brought about within my party which has led to my own election and that of many others and change the face of the parliamentary party. but i do feel that as a result of this debate, over the last

six months, we have gone two steps forward but we have also gone one step backward. the modernization of the conservative party is not yet complete. i will give way to the hon. lady. >> i think the aid -- the lady for giving way. shea like me has been particularly demonstrated by the tactics of the campaign director of the coalition for marriage who sent out e-mails urging people to say you will do this bill, you will be held to account for it. we will tell your friends and we will not vote for you. this is -- members of the house should be voting with their conscience, not on the basis of threats for future role electoral promises. >> the honorable lady makes her point better than i could have

done myself. i would say the coalition for marriage and some of the churches have deliberately and consistently misinterpreted the government's intentions by pretending we were forcing churches to mary same-sex couples. that was never the intention of this government. i and colleagues would never have supported it had it been so. belatedly only this weekend the church of england has finally admitted that it is not realistic that churches would be forced to conduct same-sex weddings. i made that point earlier. so easy to say that now when practically every person i need to doesn't follow the deliberations of political theater in great detail has said to me it is about weddings and churches for gay people, isn't it? that is the misapprehensions many of my constituents who are opposed to this bill have labored under including members

of my own association and i would like to go on record, my appreciation of those individuals who treated me with courtesy and respect for such as i can in conscience support this bill this evening without fear or favor. many of them said that we are legislating for gay weddings in church and we are not and i am satisfied by the advice of the attorney general that that is an infinitesimal possibility. we heard about the courts and no one can legislate against someone in the courts but in the european court of human rights, makes it unlikely any such challenge would succeed. i will give -- >> a very powerful, and members of the council who introduced same-sex marriage and at the same time protecting religious freedom and it is not beyond man

or woman to do the same. >> she is absolutely right. in 2010 -- from austria and the european court of human rights said there's no obligation of any country or secular government to guarantee the rights of gay people to marry each other. another point made in this debate, equality isn't all that matters, and we should celebrate cultural and other differences. having been different from most of my life, deputy speaker, and we should hold equal is very wealthy indeed and we have a way to go. not just in the area of gay people but other areas, and no one should flinch from the

requirement that we must continue this progression. otherwise we may end up like the republican party who lost an election last year they could have won were it not for socially conservative agenda. one point that hasn't been raised is gay people of course always been allowed to marry as long as they choose someone of the opposite sex. this has been the case in politics and hollywood for reasons which are well known. many gay people today appreciate the civil partnerships but do want more, do want the status of marriage and i am particularly thinking of the younger gay people who didn't have to grow up in the environment some of us had to grow up in and i support their right to declare their law in the state of marriage and i can assure my hon. friend this

will not undermine -- >> jim shannon. >> deputy speaker, i want to have misgivings about this bill. i won't the against it because i don't object to it being scrutinized by committee but i do expect to vote against it at the reading. my hon. friend who spoke at the church of england marriage service and intervention on this topic has been right to do so, not on the basis that the church of england says that it must be true, but on the basis that the church of england was the custodian of marriage in britain for hundreds of years and for many people still is. >> can i point out the church dimming would have never been the custodian? >> absolutely right. the 1552 version of the church of england, for the past 351 years, send out three reasons for marriage the first of which

and i quote was ordained for the appropriation of children to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the lord and the central problem with this bill seems to me it introduces a definition -- just a moment -- introduces a definition of marriage which comprises numbers 2 and 3 from that list but drops number one and the result is something a good deal weaker. >> hon. gentleman -- i was not young when i got married and it was highly unlikely that i was going to be able after all that time to appropriate. is he telling me that my marriage is less valid than anybody else's? >> i certainly am delighted to attend my hon. friend's wedding. that was the case 351 years ago as well. the church of england service

applied but children are at the heart of marriage but my hon. friend said they are barely mentioned in the bill. the bill has the benefits of marriage to people excluded from it at the moment but doing it at the price of taking away a significant part of its meaning. children are the reason marriage has always been so important. if it was purely about a mother relationship between two people of the way the secretary of state said it would have been much less important than it has actually been. does that matter? it does because it is right for society to recognize conlan as marriage does, the value to all of us of the contribution of those who bring children into the world and then bring them up as well. that is the ideal that the current definition of marriage reflects, it will be a mistake to lose the value which that

places on the creation and bringing up of children and in the end it will be children who lose out if we do. one more thought. >> the argument of the importance of marriage for children, is he suggesting that children should only be adopted by people who are married? or that somehow children who are in a same-sex parentage have a lesser right to have loving parents who are married? >> i am not saying either of those things. i am simply making the point that remains the ideal for the two parents who together created the child to bring that child up. legal equality, mr. deputy speaker, was delivered quite likely by the introduction of several partnerships and if there are weaknesses in those arrangements they should be put right.

aimed particularly, i see no problem with same-sex unions being celebrated in places of worship where congregation's want to do so, same-sex couple can have the same wish to affirm and have affirmed a lifelong exclusive commitment as a man and woman getting married and we should value that and be willing to recognize and celebrate it. this bill doesn't offer that same-sex unions are equal with marriage, rather that they are the same as marriage when in reality they aren't. they are different. i do think we will be poor if we adopt a watered-down definition of marriage based on two names from the church of england's list instead of three. >> mr. deputy speaker, it is quite obvious from the tenor of this debate that this proposed legislation presents many problems people face in this

chamber and beyond. i think constituents and colleagues who are neither prejudiced more homophobic genuinely believe it is impossible to change the meaning of marriage which is what this bill seeks to do. people with deep religious beliefs see this attempt to change the law as an undermining of a fundamental institution and now i think by its very introduction this bill has now undermined the perception of civil partnerships that were so widely celebrated only a few years ago. i understand many younger people are not bothered by this bill but many older people do not understand the government imperative to change the law in this area. there may be a case for examining legal advantages that exist for same-sex couples and certainly any weaknesses in the partnership's legislation but

this legislation was not in our manifesto. was not in the coalition agreement and it was not in the queen's speech. not have been introduced before a much fuller discussion had taken place particularly i believe within my own party. >> to show my puzzlement why the prime minister referred not to introduce it just before an election. >> i think there has been many conflicting messages coming out of government and the hon. lady just alluded to one of them. indeed at a meeting i attended in the house of lords only a few weeks ago with the new archbishop of canterbury, one of the bishops actually told us the church had not been fully consulted and i believe only a few weeks ago the church that had been fully involved in all discussions on this matter.

of the government had fought to read the fine civil partnerships or indeed if they could really ensure the religious freedom that they are promising would stick, more people would have been persuaded to support this legislation. >> would she accept that some of us, not exactly ideal but it is the only way of making the point what we are debating has merit it has not been the case conclusively and i would like to make clear i am not opposed to change i do need to be convinced it is necessary and brought people through. the moment they become lawyers and not able to deal with the change of marriage -- >> i ask the lady to -- i think she has spoken for many people in this house on both sides.

the secretary of state is doing the impossible in this bill, trying to change the meaning of the word marriage. no government is able to protect our religious freedom, i am going to have a problem supporting this bill tonight. the archbishop put it very simply in a television interview. he said that there are issues. i believe the issues with this legislation cannot be resolved and it is with great sadness that i am going to vote against this bill. >> mr. deputy speaker, i fought long and hard about seeking to speak in this debate. i genuinely feared that our colleagues would seek to oppose the bill. when colleagues told about gay marriage baking them physically sick or colleagues suggesting it was a threat toward legalizing polygamy --

>> give way? >> no i won't, they need to remember that there are people involved, people's law are involved and we should remember that the word spoken in the chamber hurt far beyond this chamber when we speak. mr. deputy speaker, when i was elected to this house in may of 2010 it was the proudest day of my life. i should point out it was the second promise day of my life. the proudest day was when i entered into a civil partnership which i did six years ago with my partner of 21 years. our civil partnership was a huge step forward for us and yet many argue that we should be content with our civil partnership. after all, it is afforded the same legal protections as marriage. but i asked my married colleagues did you get married for legal protections afforded

you? did you go and say please give me the protections marriage affords us? of course not. my civil partnership was our way of saying to my friends and my family this is who i love. this is who i am. this is who i wish to spend the rest of my life with. mr. deputy speaker, i am not asking for special treatment, i am simply asking for equal treatment. people have talked about the heat of the debate, sometimes leadership is about doing what is right, not what is popular. i congratulate the prime minister on leading the on this. this issue has caused anxiety among colleagues and constituents. some argue it is not the right time and yet no one has been able to explain to me what the right time looks like.

if not today, when? some day? next week? next year? this is the right time and we should simply get on with it. mr deputy speaker, so much of our time in this house is spent on technical legislation. today we have an opportunity to do what is right, to do some good. i am a member of this parliament and i say to my colleagues, i sit alongside you in committee, in the tea rooms, alongside you in the division lobby, but when it comes to marriage, why are you asking me to stand apart and join a separate queue? i ask my colleagues if i am equal in this house, give me every opportunity to be equal. today we have a chance to set that right and i hope colleagues will join me in voting yes this evening. >> with that, sir gerald.

>> i put on record my appreciation to the campaign for marriage, done a fantastic job informing not only members of this house but also the wider public about this issue. i oppose this legislation for five reasons. the first is simply wrong in principle to overturn centuries of the established custom requires proper explanation be on the equally mantra. what was some suddenly a lighted on my right hon. friend which has been denied their distinguished for bears? how come my right hon. friend thinks they know better than the established church? the home secretary and foreign secretary, the arguments that marriage has evolved over time is disingenuous. as a word mendelssohn pointed out nothing like this has been proposed in parliament ever before. this is a massive change. this legislation deeply affects the core fabric of our society to the challenge it proposes to

the whole institution of marriage. of reference has been made to spain which introduced legislation in 2005 and the overall management formed by 20% and research shows children raised in mary household with a mother and father fare better than those -- the government threatens to damage the chances of the nation's children. as mike friend pointed out and others have as well not to the prime minister nor any other party leader has a mandate since it was not in any party's manifesto let alone in the coalition agreement. my right hon. friend of prime minister insisted on speaking to the 1.7% target on the grounds that he gave a commitment in 2009 and i respect him for that, he stuck to that commitment but not the commitment to introduce tax breaks for married couples and now and that the policy which specifically ruled out in

the last general election. >> does my hon. friend think the least that should be done is we should have a draft bill with legislative scrutiny? >> absolutely. this goes to the heart of the point that as conservatives we are traditionally cautious about constitutional change but not this administration would sweeping reform makes change in the law of succession and now this all to be rushed through on a timetable motion subject to a three line -- this is no way to treat parliament or colleagues who have strong convictions either way on what is a very sensitive issue to all of us and our constituents. third, if there is no mandate, where is the demand for this change? a poll in yesterday's they mail, it is the daily mail, found out -- the daily mail -- found out

only one in 14, 7% of those questioned thought this should be a priority but another poll found 60% of the black and minority ethnic communities, the very people this party is out to woo -- i give way to my friend. >> i thank my hon. friend. the majority of the population apparently don't care so much about what we're talking about today but those people that do care in my constituency have written to me in huge numbers saying please oppose it. far greater, those people who will be rejoicing if it is passed. would you agree with me on that? >> i agree with my hon. gallant friend. the mail receive from my constituents asking about this legislation, the public does not understand the full ramifications of what will flow from this legislation if it is

passed. there is already provision for civil partnerships which provide most of the benefits of marriage to those in the gay community. those with reservations at the time were reassured the introduction of civil functions should not be seen as the forerunner of today's bill. is in another place in 2004 want to put our position very clearly, this is a new legal status that gives rights and responsibilities to people in same-sex committed relationships. we do not see it as a unanimous to marriage, we do not see it as a drift towards gay marriage. clearly those behind today's proposal feel no sense of obligation arising from those assurances given ten years ago. how can we be sure this is now going to be the end of this process or whether there will be more? fifth, as my hon. friend alluded to what about the consequences?

take education. no teacher will be required to promote or endorse views the go against their beliefs yet my right hon. friend the secretary of state who is doing a very gallant job in difficult circumstances said on the 20 fifth of january, no requirement on teachers to promote same-sex marriage but she added ominously obviously we wouldn't expect teachers to be offensive or discriminate in any way about anything? what kind of guidance that give teachers in our country who have a profound objection to other than traditional marriage? john bowers, the q c to defeated the pension rights pointed out there is no protection. mr. deputy speaker, i am not a tory modernizer. [shouting] >> i believe marriage can only be between a man and woman.

i do not surrender my principles. i believe this bill is wrong, the consultation process was a complete sham. it is opposed by the established church, it caused deep and needless divisions in the conservative party. there's no mandate for it, there are huge potential consequences not least the prospect -- prospect of legal challenge and the nation faces a challenge with the government needs to address. i therefore hope and pray that this measure will be rejected if not in this place in the other place. >> i will be voting against this bill because i am a conservative and also because i know the overwhelming number of my constituents are also against this bill. i have had three letters in support of this bill. that reflects the opinion within the christ church constituency. proponents of this bill are under one fundamental misconception and that is the man and woman are equal before

the law and therefore they are the same. they are not the same. men and women are different and they may be equal before the law weekend for some into a marriage when we have a marriage which is set up at the moment on the basis is between a man and woman. the presidents of the family division said the common law definition of marriage is the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others and we ignore that fact at our peril. >> my hon. friend raises a good point which is constituency -- many of us had. i am curious is he looking to the actual age profiles of people going into it? surely like most of us it is those people who tend to be much older who are most outraged by this. i have five children. if any of my children fog was

going to oppose it they would think i was bonkers. people under 40, the vast majority of people under 40 support this bill. >> we must have short intervention. everybody -- that is important to me that we're here, everybody's boys. >> i can't answer for hon. friend. i have a high proportion of elderly constituents, the senate and the manifest or the coalition agreement and ruled out three days before the general election. in 2004 i was a member of the standing committee on the civil partnership bill and cuff led 89 divisions in that standing committee and i argued that and i argue now that we should be giving status to civil partnerships which is the same

for both men and women and interesting that during the course of this debate a number of hon. members on both sides think civil partnerships should be extended to heterosexuals as well as homosexuals. i raise this with the prime minister -- he is against all marriage, it is not reflected in the bill before us. the logic of his view is that we should exclude civil partnerships and the bill should be amended to defeat civil partner should and the future while allowing civil partnerships to carry on. the alternative is to allow civil partnerships for both men and when and if we allow civil partnerships for everybody than the bill will not be likely to be challenged in the european court of human rights.

i think that if we leave a situation where civil partnerships are only available to same-sex couples at the same time as giving those same-sex couples access to marriage we will not be able to argue a case in the european court of human rights against that. so i think what we should be doing, mr. deputy speaker is discussing this bill in detail in committee and submitting it to free legislative scrutiny and that is why i shall be voting against the timetable motion and the carry over motion because what is an obscenity is the government persuaded this house to introduce a standing order on the basis that we will then be able to carry over bills that have first been introduced in the form of a draft bill and

subject to pre legislative scrutiny and then brought forward as a proper bill. what is happening now is the government, not having had any mention of this in a manifesto, not having a draft bill or even having pre legislative scrutiny but trying to push this bill through very quickly because they see it as embarrassing. >> it is really quite outrageous that the committee stage has not been taken on the floor of the house. any measure of the sensitivity should be taken on a floor of the house of my right hon. friend. >> absolutely. also we should have two days for the second debate. i am at odds with the prime minister on this issue but there's no reason i should be at odds with the prime minister and issues of procedure and process. if the prime minister is interested in the primacy of this chamber and doesn't want

our legislation to go piecemeal to the other place why won't he agreed to having a longer discussion of this bill. this bill could be brought forward as a fresh bill at the beginning of the next session danforth -- the time spent on scrutiny. we have not heard from the joint committee on human rights which gave important sites discussing civil partnerships. we haven't heard from other select committees because it is being sfax -- it is the rest for. i hope the other place will give a bloody nose. >> mr. deputy speaker, i was the minister that took through the gender recognition bill and although there will be much noise and fire, we will look back on this moment with great pride in her career. the measure of a civilized democracy is how we treat minorities and therefore it is important that we remember those

who serve half a century ago. a campaign for many years in this house the decriminalization of gay sex and those including my own local authority in the 1980s wanted to fund gay groups and see children understanding these complex issues and face clause 28 and had we not had that cause we might have come to this moment the little sooner. it is to them if we pay tribute as we move forward in the way we do. >> the agreement that the introduction -- had it been introduced we might have come to this point much earlier. >> my hon. friend is right. that was a moment, great stain on this house where we turned on

an important minority. we received many letters from people for whom this is all coming too soon. they think the speed of change for lesbian, gay and bisexual rights is happening too abruptly for them to comprehend. the country they live in, the traditions they live by and the people they live next to are transforming in ways that make and feel uncomfortable, upset and undermined. they are not homophobic, they say, they're not racist, but they say not now, later. to some extent i sympathize. as much as i would want britain to always be the beating heart of radical and progressive change, it isn't. at route it is always a conservative spa and the runs through and that change should always be organic. the need for change to be owned by the people, not imposed from up high and the we must respect that. i will be respective when i vote for this bill because it does

command the support of the country. it does respect religious freedom and tradition by permitting rather than mandating religious organizations to conduct a ceremony and because it is in the end of an organic journey from criminality to be quality, the gay community that began over half a century ago. this change is right, this change is necessary and the time is now. there are those who say this is all unnecessary. why do we need a marriage when we already have civil partnerships, they say. they are basically saying separate but equal. let me say quickly separate but equal is a fraud. separate but equal is the language that tried to push rosa parks to the back of a bus. separate but equal is determined that black and white people could not possibly drink from the same water fountain, eat at

the same table or use the same toilets. separate but equal are the words that justified sending children to different schools from their white kids, schools that would fail them and condemn them to a life of poverty. it is an excerpt from the book of segregationists and racists, the same statement, the same idea, the same delusion that we borrow in this country to say women could vote but only if they were married and only when they were over 30. it is the same night eddie that gave way for my dad being a citizen when he arrived in 1956 but refused by landlords and proclaim no grand, no irish, no dock. entrenched who he was, who our friends could be and what our lives could become. this is not separate but equal, it is separate and discriminated, separate and browbeaten, separate and subjugated. as long as there is one rule for

one and another for them we allow the barriers to exist and go unchallenged. as long as our statute suggests not between two men or two women is unworthy or recognized through marriage we allow garage of homophobia to fester. we entrench a society where 20,000 homophobic crimes take place each year, where 800,000 people have witnessed homophobic bullying and work in the last five years. i am a christian. i'd recognize -- >> very grateful but let me say this extraordinary impassioned iteration, let me ask if he agrees with me there are christians who look for law in every aspect of their lives and the lives of those around them, who still feel profound misgivings and concerns about

this piece of legislation. >> i totally accept the manner in which my hon. friend has put his remark and it is with deep regret that i receive many letters condemning this legislation from people who share the same values and christian ideals i do on sunday morning and i know them to be caring, loving and understanding people. i know they resent the fact those on extremes of our faith, an important debate with recipe for polygamy and bestiality. let us use today to return to discussion of what marriage taught to be about. when i married my wife i understood our marriage to have two important dimensions, the expression of love, fidelity and mutuality over the course of our life and of course a commitment to raise children. it is the case that they men and women can raise children. this house made that decision. le